Back
CHANDRA KUMAR RAI
Vijay Narayan – Appellant
Versus
Deputy Director of Consolidation – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
1. Heard Mr. Anand Kumar Srivastava, Counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Ashutosh Pandey, Counsel for respondent no. 3, learned Standing Counsel for the State-respondents and Mr. Pankaj Kumar Gupta, Counsel for respondent no. 7, Gaon Sabha.
2. Brief facts of the case are that name of the petitioner was ordered to be recorded in the revenue records vide order dated 4.9.1976 passed by the Assistant Consolidation Officer in case No. 425 under Section 12 of the U.P.C.H. Act in respect to plot No. 60, New Nos. 176, 177, 302, 303 and 304 situated in Village Marvat Tappa Puraina Pargana Amroha, Tehsil Harraiya, District-Basti. On the basis of the order dated 4.9.1976, the name of the petitioner was recorded in revenue records. C.H. Form 45 has been annexed along with the writ petition as Annexure No. 1. Petitioner remained in possession of the plot in dispute on the basis of the order dated 4.9.1976. Notification under Section 52 of U.P.C.H. Act took place on 8.2.1978 in respect to Village in question. Against the order dated 4.9.1976, private-respondent nos. 3 to 5 filed an appeal under Section 11(1) of the U.P.C.H. Act along with the delay condonation application. The appeal was re
The Deputy Director of Consolidation's remand for a fresh hearing was justified to ensure fairness, given the significant delay and procedural irregularities in prior decisions.
The right of appeal is a vested right which accrues to the litigant from the date the proceedings commenced and continues till the proceedings are finally decided. The deeming clause in Section 52(2)....
The order under Section 12 of U.P.C.H. Act does not operate as res judicata in the subsequent proceedings under Section 9A(2), and the cause of action and party actions are crucial in determining the....
The Gaon Sabha is barred from claiming title over land post finalization of consolidation operations; complaints without signatures lack validity.
Revisional jurisdiction under consolidation laws requires adherence to legal procedures, especially concerning time-barred claims and the provision of interim protection.
The court established that excessive delay in filing title objections under the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act cannot be condoned, especially when the petitioner was aware of the proceedings.
Refusing to condone delay can result in a meritorious matter being thrown out at very threshold and cause of justice being defeated.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
